11/28/2012

It is sexist and racist to criticize a potential SOS nominee for knowingly misleading the American public, if she is a Dem. If she is a Republican, it is not sexist or racist to call her a house-Negro, because you disagree with her.

317 Responses to “SOS Rice ?”

Isn’t it interesting that they’re going with this attack at the very same time that they’re also claiming that since these R senators gave Condoleezza Rice a “pass” on her alleged misinformation (which was of course nothing of the sort) they should be giving Rice a similar pass, and their failure to do so is a sign of…er…what? One would have thought that these two lines of attack are mutually exclusive, and they would have to pick one or the other, but apparently they’re running with both and depending on the public not to notice.

If the video (Innocence of Muslims) that U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice (President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Spokeshole Jay Carney, etc.) pushed on the five (5) Sunday talk shows to the American people, as being the cause of the 9/11/12 attack on our Benghazi Consulate:

In that video, Ms. Barnhardt bookmarks certain passages of the Koran with bacon that she finds offensive, then serially she reads each passage, rips it out, places it in a breaker and then sets it on fire.

Now if there was any truth to the claim that a video (particularly Innocence of Muslims was the cause of demonstrations, riots, attacks, suicide bombings, IEDs, etc., Ms. Barnhardt’s video – might just be something that might cause a Jihadist to get a little upset.

But again, not a peep from the lame stream media (or any media), Rice, Obama, Clinton, the Jihadists, Egypt, etc., about Ms. Barnhardt or her video.

Associated Press – by Sarah El Deeb
Nov 28, 2012
EGYPT COURT SENTENCES 8 TO DEATH OVER PROPHET FILM
CAIRO (AP) — An Egyptian court has convicted in absentia seven Egyptian Coptic Christians and a Florida-based American pastor and sentenced them to death on charges linked to an anti-Islam film that had sparked riots in parts of the Muslim world.
Egypt’s official news agency said the court found the defendants guilty Wednesday of harming national unity, insulting and publicly attacking Islam, and spreading false information. The charges carry the death sentence in Egypt.
The case was largely symbolic since the seven men and one woman are outside of Egypt and unlikely to travel to the country to face the charges. The trial was seen as an attempt to absorb public anger over the film, which portrays the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud, womanizer and buffoon.

In that video, Ms. Barnhardt bookmarks certain passages of the Koran with bacon that she finds offensive, then serially she reads each passage, rips it out, places it in a breaker and then sets it on fire.

If someone did that to the Bible or a statue of the Buddha or an American flag, we’d yawn.

Why is the US Government promoting outrage if one blasphemes the views of the extremist sect of Islam? It’s practically like they are establishing a religion, and it sends the message that terrorism and violence get the US Government to support your goals.

I seem to recall quite a lot of outrage about such things. We wouldn’t kill anyone, of course, but plenty of people would be plenty upset.

I don’t see a lot of outrage when South Park shows Jesus being outwitted by Satan, or a citizen of Imaginationland. Of course there is some out there, but by and large our society’s blood pressure is not going up all that much over it.

US Flags are burning every other time I turn on the TV, and most folks barely even notice.

But to get more to the point, the US Government would not blame the flag burner if someone threatened to kill him. They would blame the person issuing the threat.

It is not the videographer’s fault that the Benghazi murders occurred (even if you pretend the riots occurred, which they didn’t, making the blame doubly absurd).

Well, it sort of is, indirectly, because there’s a fair bit of reason to suspect that he’s in cahoots with the murderers, or at least engaged in a common enterprise. His claims to be a Coptic Christian are no more credible than his earlier claims to be an Israeli Jew.

Why would she lie? None of you morons have ever explained why this is important. If you think it means something about the administration “not caring” about the people killed well then you’re just playing a stupid game that no one is buying. Your typical game of blame, implication, innuendo but no facts.

Didn’t America already send you all the clear signal a few weeks ago that it doesn’t buy this BS anymore?

Do you really think your tactic of screaming for attention like little brats is a productive one?

You get attention but misuse it to demonstrate your own hateful ignorance and mendacity.

Please keep it up. Please. Please. You dig yourselves deeper into oblivion with every tantrum.

“Apparently respect for our fallen heroes is a ‘non issue’ to democrats like him.”

You disrespect them and all other men and women in the service by lying to them and using them to advance your own narrow political goals enwrapped (ironically) in the American Flag.

Republicans hate the military. They have nothing but contempt for the people who serve. They are pawns to you. They shed blood to protect you from imaginary enemies and bogeymen. If they were as politically savvy as they were brave they’d hate all of you.

I’m just saying this Nakoula guy, or whatever his real name is, may well be indirectly guilty of those murders, but for a completely different reason.

It will be interesting to learn about that.

Why would she lie? None of you morons have ever explained why this is important.

The Obama administration failed to protect out own, when it had the means and opportunity to do so. Also, the Obama administration’s general claim to have defeated Al Qaida is untrue.

It does not require an explanation as to why that’s important. They knew they needed to lie to the American people with an election coming up. Now that we’re past that, Rice admits her claims were dead wrong, and the timeline shows that the administration knew they were wrong when they lied.

I’ve seen in other pieces, that Peter Bergen, dismisses Benghazi, yes the one who made his reputation like John Miller did, and Tim Rutten pretends to, on having interviewed Bin Laden when he first declared war on us

The broader lesson, is if one doesn’t identify a threat when it is beginning, it will metastazize in the future, Clinton didn’t fully utilize the Trodpint teams in the 90s, hence the embassy bombings, the Cole and 9/11. That is the significance of Bin Laden,

‘Madame Ambassador’ how does denial of the true facts on the ground, that are at odds, with the account of the allied government, further smart
power, or is the undermining of the Magarief govt, which was what happened, a US policy objective in the region,’

Why is it that democrat administrations correlate well with mistakes leading to military ballots not arriving in time to vote? Liberals wound up satirizing the issue and dismissing it,but the Inspector General for the DoD says the issue is all too real.

And recall Florida in 2000:

When we were talking about votes that were for Pat Buchannan in democrat leaning districts, but could be interpreted as votes for Gore, democrats said ‘If the intent of the voter can be determined with reasonable certainty from an inspection of the ballot effect must be given to that intent and the vote counted’

But this rule didn’t apply to the military.

“No man or woman in military service to this nation should have his or her vote rejected solely due to the absence of a postmark,” Butterworth said in a letter to the state’s 67 county elections supervisors and other canvassing board members. […] Democrat Senator Kerrey at an afternoon press conference, calling for military voters to be held to the same standard as everybody else: “If it’s not a legal ballot, it should not be counted.”

So a soldier does everything right but Clinton’s DoD doesn’t mark the mail with the correct stamp, and democrats insist those votes don’t count. A democrat vote is too difficult to decipher to be a valid vote, but every effort should be made to count it (for Gore).

At that point, democrats lost any credibility on the topic of supporting our military.

1) These meetings with Senators are apparently in preparation for a nomination as Secretary of State. (She’s not seeing any House members. This kind of thing is sometimes done around the time of a nomination.)

1a) This means President Obama is pretty serious about nominating her.

It doesn’t rightly matter, who she appeared before,
they don’t need the GOP vote to get her confirmed,
she has not earned it, how many times will this lesson need to be learned, after Geithner, Holder,
Susstein, et al,

Today she is scheduled to have meetings (separately) with at least two Senators, apparently one on one.

They are Senator Bob Corker(R-Tenn) (who suggested that maybe President Obama should maybe name her instead to head the Democratic National Commiitee – I don’t know if that is serious) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). Susan Collins is particularly important because she is the senator from Susan Rice’s home state, who usuaally intrioduces nominees to other Senators, at the beginning of the committee hearings that will hear the nonination. She had only met her once or twioce when she introduced her in 2009 when she was nominated to become Ambassador to the United Nations. (Susan Rice’s grandparents came to Portland Maine from Jamaica – that must be some back story.)

Sen Collins gave Maureen Dowd of the New York Times the questions she has, who printed them in her column today.

Votes?
First, there is the Senatorial Privilege of a “Hold”;
then, there is the filibuster, which requires 60-votes to stop.
If the GOP can hold 41 of their members together, they can keep her from being confirmed.

The next day, or that evening, the President will just make a recess appointment of Ms. Rice as SecState.
The fact that the Senate won’t be “in recess” is immaterial, because “I Won!”.

Collins drew up a list of questions to ask Rice at their one-on-one hourlong meeting slated for Wednesday. She wants Rice to explain how she could promote a story “with such certitude” about a spontaneous demonstration over the anti-Muslim video that was so at odds with the classified information to which the ambassador had access. (It was also at odds with common sense, given that there were Al Qaeda sympathizers among the rebel army members that overthrew Muammar el-Qaddafi with help from the U.S. — an intervention advocated by Rice — and Islamic extremist training camps in the Benghazi area.)

The F.B.I. interviewed survivors of the attack in Germany and, according to some senators, had done most of the interviews of those on site by Sept. 15, the day before Rice went on TV, and established that there was no protest. Collins wants to learn if the F.B.I. had failed to communicate that, or if they had communicated it and Rice went ahead anyway?

When Rice heard the president of the Libyan National Congress tell Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation,” right before her appearance, that 50 people had been arrested who were either foreign or affiliated with or sympathized with Al Qaeda, why did she push back with the video story? “Why wouldn’t she think what the Libyan president said mattered?” Collins wondered.

Why did Rice say on ABC News’s “This Week,” that “two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security”? Rice was referring to the two ex-Navy SEAL team members who were C.I.A. security officers working on a base about a mile away. “They weren’t there to protect Ambassador Stevens,” Collins said. “That wasn’t their job.”

Rice also said that “we had a substantial security presence with our personnel” — which was clearly not the case. Collins wants to know Rice’s basis for saying on ABC that the attacks were “a direct result of a heinous and offensive video.” And why did she say “a small number of people” came to the consulate to protest, when that phrase is not in her talking points? Collins is curious why Rice is not angrier, if, as she insists, she was repeating what she was told. “I’d be furious at the White House and F.B.I. and intelligence community for destroying my credibility,” the senator said.

Collins said that before she would support Rice for secretary of state, she needs to ascertain what was really going on. “Did they think admitting that it was an Al Qaeda attack would destroy the narrative of Libya being a big success story?” Collins asked. As one of the administration champions of intervening in Libya, Rice was surely rooting for that success story herself..

“American people have no business questioning the lies that Obama feeds them.”

What lies? And why?

Your inability to provide a reasonable answer to even these basic questions only serves to underscore that it’s nothing more than business-as-usual for the Wingnuts…demanding that the rest of the world play along with your pathetic little games.

And then questioning everyone’s patriotism, etc. when they don’t.

Don’t you ever get tired of repeating yourselves over and over and over and over??? For nothing.

Late yesterday, Senators McCain, Graham and Ayotte (the Wall street Journal article leaves out Graham but breitbart puts him in) released a statement saying that Mike Morell, the acting CIA Director, had told them during the 1 1/2 hour meeting that started at 10 am that the FBI remoived references to al Qaeda. But that later on at 4 pm the CIA called them and said it had removed those references, not the FBI.

We are disturbed by the administration’s continued inability to answer even the most basic questions about the Benghazi attack and the administration’s response.

….we asked Mr. Morell who changed the unclassified talking points to remove references to al-Qaeda. In response, Mr. Morell said the FBI removed the references and did so to prevent compromising an ongoing criminal investigation. We were surprised by this revelation and the reasoning behind it.

However, at approximately 4:00 this afternoon, CIA officials contacted us and indicated that Acting Director Morell misspoke in our earlier meeting. The CIA now says that it deleted the al-Qaeda references, not the FBI. They were unable to give a reason as to why.

In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi,” Rice said in the statement. “While we certainly wish that we had had perfect information just days after the terrorist attack, as is often the case, the intelligence assessment has evolved.”

Today, Acting CIA Director Michael Morell and I met with Senators McCain, Graham, and Ayotte to discuss my September 16th public comments regarding the attack against the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, and the intelligence assessments that formed the basis for those comments. I appreciated the opportunity to discuss these issues directly and constructively with them.

In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi. While we certainly wish that we had had perfect information just days after the terrorist attack, as is often the case, the intelligence assessment has evolved. We stressed that neither I nor anyone else in the Administration intended to mislead the American people at any stage in this process, and the Administration updated Congress and the American people as our assessments evolved.

The Administration remains committed to working closely with Congress as we thoroughly investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi and bring to justice the terrorists responsible for the tragic deaths of our colleagues, Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. We also look forward to the findings of the Accountability Review Board and the FBI investigation.

“The whole point is I don’t think Obama realizes things don’t make sense. (if he did he wouldn’t send her up there like that)”

Sammy – It’s over Obama’s head. He thinks everybody should act like the media and just swallow whatever lies he or his shills decide to feed them and puts his pouty, petulant, offended face on if they don’t.

Mitt Romney on bin Laden: “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.”

George W. 9/11 Bush on bin Laden: “Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.”

You vote for people who support Al Qaeda.

You demonstrably hate America.

A little kerfuffle over a tragic embassy killing won’t change these facts.

If a Republican was in office it would be worse.

We wouldn’t be talking about 4 dead Americans but potentially thousands.

P.Tillman why do you want a major metropolitan area to be attacked again? Is it because there’s lots of minorities in them? Why are you so happy whenever we suffer casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan? HATE HATE HATE!!!

Get it all out now Gerald. Go ahead, puke out all the bile and hate that is stored up after Obama beat your pathetic excuse for a man and candidate. Lean over that bowl and just let it flow! Believe me, it’s about the most honest outpouring I’ve seen here in a while.

Thank you, Gerald and DRJ, for answering this guy’s requests. Well done.

Troll who uses the name of Corporal Tillman: I pray for you. God loves you and always will, and asks that you love your fellow man.

I also pray and ask for prayer for me to regain the ability I used to have to forgive jerks on the internet, something I struggle with, in all honesty. I don’t really care about winning arguments online… I just enjoy the discussion. But some of the trolls have managed to take something I used to value about myself far more than debate theater.

I’m so glad that Obama killed bin Laden, because it marked the end of all terrorist activities everywhere hurray!

Comment by Pious Agnostic (20c167) —

That is the narrative they were trying to send. That a gutsy president made bold choices Bush wouldn’t make and somehow saved us from this huge problem.

Only the truth is that the OBL raid was the easiest call imaginable and Obama still messed it up somewhat, this did not accomplish a great deal towards defeating al qaida (Bush was right) and when Obama’s guts were actually tested, he voted present and four Americans perished.

Dustin, someone with a healthy mind does not need to appeal to imaginary super-beings to help them understand the world or their own minds. Your “faith” is a handicap that allows you to easily externalize blame for your own intellectual/moral/ethical shortcomings.

You and others here would significantly benefit from trying to live in the real world rather than one of your own creation.

You are the party of faith.

Just witness the communal outpouring of stupidity that has infected this thread thanks to Gerald A, who has started a chant that allows you all to retreat to the comfort of your own warped world views.

I pity you and am amazed that society has tolerated people like you for so long.

I pity you and am amazed that society has tolerated people like you for so long.

Do you foresee this tolerance changing somewhat? Should I be worried that your kind are gonna come for me in the night, maybe send Seal Team Six down my chimney to shoot me dead like that Mr. bin Laden what Obama had killed so we’d all be safe again?

P.Tillman is a classic case of self-absorbed arrogance and self-imposed misry. The of act of inflicting his views on others especially those with whom he disagrees is appealing to him because he is impotent and not in control in real life. This excercise that he is engaged in here is not to debate any issue at all. It is a way for him to make up for the sheer lack of control of his own life in reality. One should only pity P.Tillman.

Dustin, someone with a healthy mind does not need to appeal to imaginary super-beings to help them understand the world or their own minds. Your “faith” is a handicap that allows you to easily externalize blame for your own intellectual/moral/ethical shortcomings.

You and others here would significantly benefit from trying to live in the real world rather than one of your own creation.

You are the party of faith.

Just witness the communal outpouring of stupidity that has infected this thread thanks to Gerald A, who has started a chant that allows you all to retreat to the comfort of your own warped world views.

I pity you and am amazed that society has tolerated people like you for so long.

Comment by (fcbc8b) — 11/28/2012

I expected the defensive reaction. To get this out of the way, I’m proud to confess my religious views. Of course you’ll scoff at how lame they are. I think I’ll manage.

I not trying to say I’m superior to you. I don’t really think I need to, given all the effort you put into acting horribly, but that’s not the point.

I’m just a starving man telling another starving man where to find a good meal.

Yesterday, Susan Rice also saw Senator Joe Lieberman, even though he is leavinbg the senate and won’t have a vote if she is nominated after January 3. Does President obama intend to nomninate her in December?

According to what this ABC News excerpt from Good Morning America this morning

Because it said taht Hillary Clinton seems determined to leave right after presidential inaguration day (January 21, postponed from Jan 20 becaused January 20 is a Sunday) and that a decision may come very soon.

I’m so glad that Obama killed bin Laden, because it marked the end of all terrorist activities everywhere hurray!

Joe Lieberman said that in hehr meeting Susan Rice said that she wished she hadn’t said “Al Qaeda” had been decimated, but instead said the “core of Al Qaeda” had been decimated.

Decimated doesn’t mean destroyed!

This has been a particular problem with Senator McCain, says the New York Times, because he’s been saying the Administration has been improperly claiming Al Qaeda was wiped out when its affilaiates are on the march in Iraq, Libya and Yemen.

Does Mr. Nakoula now regret the footage? After all, it fueled deadly protests across the Islamic world and led the unlikely filmmaker to his own arrest for violating his supervised release on a fraud conviction.

Not at all. In his first public comments since his incarceration soon after the video gained international attention in September, Mr. Nakoula told The New York Times that he would go to great lengths to convey what he called “the actual truth” about Muhammad. “I thought, before I wrote this script,” he said, “that I should burn myself in a public square to let the American people and the people of the world know this message that I believe in.”

I wonder what such characters are like in real life? I envision various ultra-liberals as being prone to really scroungy, dishonest behavior. Unpleasantly flaky, crassly disingenuous and super deluded about what makes themselves tick and what makes other folks good or bad.

I can easily see screwball liberals as being the type who’d rob their grandmother blind, cause never-ending grief for their parents, and pretend to care about people who truly need a helping hand, yet would still hold themselves up to the light as an example of a humane, compassionate, open-minded person.

Collins drew up a list of questions to ask Rice at their one-on-one hourlong meeting slated for Wednesday……

These are not particularly good questions.

Huh? I’m not sure if, in your mind, those questions don’t apply because you’re still wedded to the belief that ass-backwards liberalism (ie, a desire to blame America First, and a feeling that mean ol’ imperialist forces are out to hurt sad, touching, noble, Third-Worldish Muslims) is NOT a major factor in the White House’s response to the terrorism in Libya.

BTW, there’s plenty of ass-backwards, politically-correct left-leaning instincts in no less than the US military too. Once again, the case of Nidal Hasan and Fort Hood.

For a couple,of weeks now, the lefty blogs have been putting out the #RWbubble meme as a specific counter to persistent interest in all the as yet unexplained and foreseeably murderous lack of security there and the heavy dissembling in the aftermath

Mr. T’s calling it of interest only as a cudgel for the R to wield, that this is the only concern of people like me, who know better because i know what I feel, means he’s not understood anything but how bad it looks. He forgets how bad it is to let people die to keep up appearances, and he’s afraid of the truth, and would rather not seek it.

someone with a healthy mind does not need to appeal to imaginary super-beings to help them understand the world or their own minds. Your “faith” is a handicap […] I pity you and am amazed that society has tolerated people like you for so long.

Dude, whether you’re for religion or agin’ it, you can’t deny that America is a religious country; this society is dominated by those of us who believe in your “imaginary super-being[s]”; but, for now at least, it tolerates and even accepts atheists. If it were one day to turn intolerant, it’s you who would feel that intolerance long before Dustin would.

==Obama is going to nominate Condi Rice to be Secretary of State ?! No way==

How bizarre is it that these two ladies, close in age and with similar government paths are both named Rice. Does any one here know if they are distant relatives or if they have a common paternal ancestor or bloodline? Actually, this sounds like a job for Sammy.

I believe that the surname “Rice” is a somewhat more common name in parts of the south.
Off the top of my head, I can even think of several pro athletes (black) with that last name, most of whom I believe were from the south.

I don’t know how Rice can be worse than Hillary, but maybe with a little bit of effort? These guys who are now busting Rice’s balls, are the same guys who approved her for the UN, and approved Hillary, right? Theater.

While it is true that the Senate is generally deferential to a President’s Cabinet nominations, it is a “check and balance” instituted to guard against nominating someone perceived as completely incompetent or corrupt—particularly for the position of Secretary of State, where the person represents the country in meeting with international heads of state.
Bush experienced opposition to Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Meiers as potential Supreme Court nominees, and the very esteemed John Bolton was appointed UN Ambassador during recess due to nasty partisan opposition among the Democrat Senators.
Reach back into H.G. Wells Time Machine, and there was a little episode during the 1980s called a “Borking.”

Point is, a President’s nominees are not inherently immune from future criticism simply because they were deferentially confirmed by the Senate in the past.

I wonder how the radicals, terrorists and extremists in general throughout the world are seeing things right now? They must be getting some cheap chuckles at the state of affairs. Namely, that the “world’s superpower” is being overseen by a flim-flam mess known as Barack Obama.

When a publication with the infamous history of Pravda, no less, is making America in 2012 sound not much better than some two-bit, tired, haggard nation (or what the former Soviet Union is in its own right), that really is the height of irony. Sad, ridiculous irony.

english.pravda.ru, Xavier Lerma, November 7, 2012:

The revisionist historians have tried to “cover up” God himself by not allowing recent generations to know that America was once a nation of religious people. Now, over half the people in America are not well informed and are willing to believe the spoon fed propaganda from the Democrats and Republicans.

The Democrats and Republicans are notorious for wanting to stay in power. Their worshipers get their education from TV and their friends. In the future, after it becomes obvious that their plan failed, these “useful idiots” will still blame Bush for the economy, overlook Obama as they overlooked Clinton’s mistakes or think their vote counts and they actually have freedom while approving of wars overseas.

Such people are the product of America’s decaying society whose reality has been warped by drugs and other selfish pleasures. America has gradually become worse from the drugs, rock and roll of the 60′s and 70′s to the drugs and rap music of today. The communists won while Americans smoked pot.

The alienation of God in society began in the classroom. Today, blasphemies can easily be seen on TV and the cinema. Hollywood portrays the sane as the insane. The abnormal and perverted as normal. The unborn babies are seen as nothing. The silent holocaust continues. Is it any wonder America is in trouble?

The economy destroyed by white collar crimes were done by men of immoral character. They are not personally responsible for all of America’s failings but are a symptom of America’s spiritual illness most commonly referred to in previous centuries as “sin”. This is the connection that most fail to see. Where there is no God there is chaos.

“Freedom of the press” means the media will be free to report what it wants you to know. ABC, CBS, NBC , MSNBC, CNN and even Fox are similar to the Communist Soviet Union’s “Pravda”.

I knew one of Pravda’s top Greek executives (his daughter more closely). He was hard-line Communist. He had spent five years on a prison island for his politics. With one thing and another, we lost touch. He’s dead now, for a time.

For it to talk about American white collar crime from the confines of Putin’s kleptocracy is beyond hilarity.

But it’s like when a sad sack is eliciting sympathy from another sad sack. Russia obviously is a major joke in its own right. But when someone based in that flop of a society expresses sorrow over what’s happening here in this society — in this nation — that’s getting very close to the situation of “even the losers think we’re pathetic!”

No, narciso, he contracted one of the faster-acting Alzheimers, and now he’s dead. He was of the older generation, when Stalin was still alive, and he had been through a lot. He was a fine man, raised a fine daughter, she’s a pneumonologist.

166.I knew one of Pravda’s top Greek executives (his daughter more closely). He was hard-line Communist. He had spent five years on a prison island for his politics. With one thing and another, we lost touch. He’s dead now, for a time.

Oh, that Wall Street Journal article doesn’t get into anything yet. It’s talking about her tenure at the United Nations.

But there’s also the Rwandan genocide in 1994 and the embassy bombings in 1998.

I found in my archives in an excerpt of some article written in early September 2001 abnout the Rwandan genocide: (the Clinton Administration was refusing to label it genocide)

At an interagency teleconference in late April, Susan Rice, a rising star on the NSC who worked under Richard Clarke, stunned a few of the officials present when she asked, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?” Lieutenant Colonel Tony Marley remembers the incredulity of his
colleagues at the State Department. “We could believe that people would wonder that,” he says, “but not that they would actually voice it.” Rice does not recall the incident but concedes, “If I said it, it was completely
inappropriate, as well as irrelevant.”

I’ll try to trace that artucle and explain a little bit more.

I’m also trying to get some information together on the 1998 embassy bombinmgs. Did she ignore requests for increased security?

How would she being guilty in anyway exculpate Obama from screwing up or sending out a shill to keep him looking sweet and successful? She’s not responsible for security, or military action to defend, and Obama insists she isn’t “Fibber zero.”

I didn’t realize she had financial dealings with Iran, or was poised to make millions through her interests with oil companies ready to take advantage of the pipeline.

All Rice being a slimy shill means to me, is that Obama was THIS CLOSE to letting a slimy shill be secretary of state, and that he gets advice from slimy shills, and follows it, and doesn’t have much clue about dropping ambassadors into undefended snake pits or he did it on purpose.

I agree that presidents ought in general to have their way with appointments. Indeed I even took that attitude to Supreme Court appointments, which is why, while I did not support Harriet Miers’s nomination, I wrote at the time (here and on Beldar) that if I were a senator I would have voted to confirm her, because she was the president’s choice and she was neither incompetent nor corrupt.

But if a nominee is guilty of the sort of conduct that ought to get her impeached if she did it in office, then for the same reason she ought not to be confirmed to that office in the first place. I would never confirm John Kerry or Elizabeth Warren for any executive appointment, because they’re disreputable people. For that matter I wouldn’t confirm 0bama for an appointment. So Rice should also not be confirmed. Samantha Power, on the other hand, while I think her political ideas are not just terrible but dangerous, as far as I know she hasn’t done anything personally disreputable (though I’d want to find out). So if she were nominated, I’d hesitate (were I a senator) to vote against her; I’d probably do it anyway if it were to SecState, just because she’s so very dangerous and I’d be frightened of what she’d do in office, but in principle that oughtn’t to be a consideration if the president nominates her.

It seems like there’s little opposition to him in the Senate. Obama probably doesn’t care for him, though, but a nomination like this is somewhat attractive to Republicans because, besides personal friendship, it could give them a seat and put Scott Brown back into the Senate.

I heard on TV that Obama is checking out Chuck Hagel. Hageel could have some trouble. Hagel was against sanctions on Iran and for negitiating with Hamas and he backed Bob Kerrey in the election as well as Joe Sestak in 2010, and is Chairman of his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

More likely, Hagel is a candidate for Defense Secretary and his name was also floated as Director of National Intelligence.

Rice is already disqualified since we’ve already been served notice that any attempts at Congressional oversight will be racist.

The specific executive branch departments are creations of law. In other words, creations of Congress. I don’t see why Congress should tolerate a cabinet officer that they can’t hold accountable.

True, the Constitution does mention principal officers of the executive departments. But then it also mentions something about them being appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate.

As far as Hagel goes, any officer of the US ought to be as a bare minimum willing to abide by US law. If he’s in favor of talking directly with Hamas then he’d be a no go with me. Per the Immigration and Nationality Act Hamas is a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Of course, we’ve just reelected a Preeezy who’s demonstrated he doesn’t much care for abiding by US law. Or any laws for that matter. So I can see why he’d nominate a SecState who he’d consider to be free from Congressional oversight or would be willing to ignore US law if a FTO can fire enough rockets into Israel to convince him they’re a serious negotiating partner (there’s a criteria for you).

As far as Hagel goes, any officer of the US ought to be as a bare minimum willing to abide by US law. If he’s in favor of talking directly with Hamas then he’d be a no go with me. Per the Immigration and Nationality Act Hamas is a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

In 2009, at the time of the first Gaza war, he said the U.S. should engage in direct talks with Hamas.

WASHINGTON – Nine former senior US officials and one current adviser are urging the Obama administration to talk with leaders of Hamas to determine whether the militant group can be persuaded to disarm and join a peaceful Palestinian government, a major departure from current US policy. (Full article: 872 words)

This was before Gates retired, but they apparenntly have started an FBI check again.

And his whole position with regards to the Middle East and Israel has been like that.

Milhouse, the murders are the fault of those who committed them. Under your conspiracy theory, the videographer is in cahoots, which changes the issue considerably.

You’re missing the point. Of course in no way did that video cause demonstrations or attacks to happen.

It wasn’t really an essential part of the plot, but it looks to me it was part of the plot.

It would be something designed to make it look less planned, and also preventable by different methods than actually would prevent it.

Murder in reaction to speech is the fault of the murderer, not the speaker, is the principle I’m conveying.

It wasn’t in reaction to speech and I don’t think it helped very much if at all, in recruiting people.

It was a red herring, and they needed or wanted a red herring.

Now – There was no way they could have found that movie by accident. Even if let’s say they could find something, it was probably much better for them foir it to be something they had a hand in. If it was somsething truly independent, then, it wouldn’t take much to have the author apologize, to have it taken down etc. That wouldn’t serve the purpose.

There is a dispute about how important the video was in provoking the terrorist assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the United States ambassador and three other Americans. Militants interviewed at the scene said they were unaware of the video until a protest in Cairo called it to their attention. But the video without question led to protests across the globe, beginning in Cairo and spreading rapidly in September to Yemen, Morocco, Iran, Tunisia, Sudan, Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon, Indonesia and Malaysia.

It didn’t lead to protests any where else. It was just used – to “explain” the protests to people very far away. Iran definitely used it as a theme.

On-the-ground accounts indicate that Ms. Rice’s description of the attack, though wrong in some respects, was accurate in others. Witnesses to the assault said it was carried out by members of the Ansar al-Shariah militant group, without any warning or protest, in retaliation for an American-made video mocking the Prophet Muhammad.

There you have it. Yes, without a protest, but also – the video!!

That’s what the perpetrators said in the following days.

The video was a lie, but the man whoi mad ethe viodeo was instrumental in making that lie plausible. That’s how he helped the terrorists.

The video – which of course nobody had heard of a day or two before – supposedly triggered everything.

This is the key point in the disinformation.

The video supposedly caused it – therefore everything that happened was unplanned, because if the video caused it nobody could have planned the assault in Benghazi since they didn’t know about the video the day before.

Why, they didn’t even know about it till a few hours before. Right?

[Of course the type of attack means they did know, which in turn means the video didn’t cause it, but since the perpetrators said it did, it must mean the video was part of the plot.]

The video caused it!!!

That’s what the Sooper Sekrit Intelligence said.

From Informants, the Libyan press or some offcials, and an interpretation of a telephone call between Bengazi and Timbuktu or somewhere else in Mali.

I’m telling you there was indeed Sooper Sekrit Intelligence and the CIA was responsible for the story about the demonstrations. Not the Obama White House.

C.I.A. analysts drafted four sentences describing “demonstrations” in Benghazi that were “spontaneously inspired” by protests in Cairo against a crude video lampooning the Prophet Muhammad. (Later assessments concluded there were no demonstrations.) The initial version of the talking points identified the suspected attackers — a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, with possible links to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, an offshoot of the terrorist network in North Africa.

But during a subsequent review by several intelligence agencies, C.I.A. officials were concerned that such specific language might tip off the malefactors, skew intelligence collection in Libya and interfere with the criminal investigation. So they replaced the names with the blanket term “extremists.”

Note again – the New York Times says – Yes, no demonstrations, but a spontaneous attack.

The CIA is not conceding, you can see, that the word “spontaneous” was wrong.

Nobody else put that word in. Nobody but the CIA. And it was there from the beginning.

Foreign intelligence moles in the CIA wrote that – and they also got rid of Director David Petraeus before he could find out about them and get rid of them (not that he was so close, but still, he might, and it was chore keeping him from discoverinmg or suspecting there were moles.)

Did something similar to what happened in Benghazi already happen somewhere else and on Rice’s watch?

This is really a great point made by Senator Susan Collins (R-MN) after her meeting with Rice about the Benghazi attack and it’s one that hasn’t been underscored enough (if it’s been made at all). In 1998, as Collins points out, Susan Rice was the “head of the African region of the State Department” when the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed (yes, those are in Africa) in 1998.

Not only that but as was the case in Benghazi, embassy staff in Kenya and Tanzania requested more security and were denied. Collins has long been viewed as one of the Senate’s weaker Republicans but this is an excellent question.

Not only did Bill Clinton refuse to help, not only did he not try imitating Raoul Wallenberg – if there were some volunteers – he stopped all other countries from interferinmg also.

Stopping other countries from interfering was part of Susan Rice’s job in 1994.

Because how would it have looked for other countries to interfere and the United States tioo stay out?

Actually that’s probably not the reason. The genocide was probably planned in China. All the hatchets used had previously been imported from China. And we all know about the campaign contributions Bill Clintoin got for the 1996 election.

These are the (orally released – prepared originally for Representative C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, according to the New York Times) “talking points”

As released (read out loud) by Senator Dianne Feinstein at or after a closed door hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee and published in at the end of an article by Eric Schmitt on page A10 of the Saturday, November 17, 2012 New York Times and again as a sidebar on page A12 of the Thursday, November 29, 2012 New York Times.

I have added some of the possible editing.

“The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. consulate diplomatic facility post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that members of Ansar al-Shariah, a group with possible links to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

This assessment may change as additional nformation is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be
evaluated.

The investigation is ongoing, and the U.S. government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.”

It would be interesting to find out if somebody’s protest resulted in the addition of the words: “This assessment may change..”

First, in 2002, from Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to Mark Basseley Youssef, and then in 2009 to what sounds to me ilke an Islamic name, Ebrahem Fawzy Youssef.

He didn’t use the last one – his lawyer claims he was not aware until recently that the name change had been finalized.

He (claims he?) wrote a script in 2008. He started making it but when he went to prison he told people he had cancer. The New York Times did not get from him an estimate of the cost of the movie, but cites “a person who discussed the financing with him” that it cost no more than $80,000, “apparently raised through his second ex-wife’s Egyptian family.”

He told people when he making it that the budget was $5 million raised mainly from Jewish donors. (the New York Times put in that word “mainly” He didn’t) That’s a “tell”

He spelled the name Bassile a number of different ways from time to time.

I think it has been estimated by someone involved he must have spent $250,000. There was 15 days of shooting and then looping eight months later (this spring) during which actors were asked to say the word Muhammed. Looping is usually done
when some audio did not come out.

He admitted to some people he was misleading the actors. And to some people he said it was a film about persecution of Copts in Egypt. One person, with the name Elaia Basily, says a full length film does exist on DVD and he saw it on DVD and he found it historically accurate.

Who run around deleting the word al qaida from press releases and talking points?

That’s why I called them terrorist supporting moles, rather than Saudi or Qatari or whatever moles.

Seems unlikely.

It would seem so, but things that might strike you as unlikely have happened.

Now actually I think they are first of all, really foreign intelligence moles – it’s the foreign intelligence agencies that support limited, controlled, terrorism.

Deleting al Qaeda was very important, even though the precise al Qaeda connection was already wrong – (the connection of the people in Benghazi is to Egypt, and Yemen, not Mali) because this fits with the narrative of the whole thing not being pre-planned, and eliminates the need to protection. And if you think it was pre-planned, you might try to track down the perpetrators.

i> Seems more like democrats were doing this to conceal their failure in defeating al qaida.

You could, but you’d have to assume the Democrats were in the CIA because this idea about a spontaneous or unplanned demonstration run amok originated in the CIA – and they didn’t make it up, they had Sooper Sekrit Intelligence to back themselves up.

(You’d have to assume what you’ve got is people in the CIA whose loyalty is to the Democratic Party, not the country, but there’s no way the DNC could pay them secretly. No they are not partisan Democrats, they are foreign intelligence moles. Especially since they seem to have intelligence to back them up. All they had to do is believe or pretend to believe their sources.)

I know that some Republicans, particularly Lindsey Graham, if I interpret his remarks last week correctly, are suspicious that some people in the CIA are political – Mike Morell went with Susan Rice to help her with Senators McCain, Ayotte and Graham, but he only succeeded in getting his own possible nomination to be CIA Director in trouble.

But this I think originated at lower levels.

Now you could argue people in the CIA had the same motive the Obama Administration had to argue they had defeatd al Qaeda. But they had a weaker motive.

Mike Rogers looks really less informed than Sen Dianne Feinstein. He still persists in calling it a consulate. Dianne Feinstein was either half ignorant or being very careful because the other location was really CIA headquarters, even though operating under the aegis of the State Department.

Dianne Feinstein says the mission was a place for the Ambassador to sty when he visited Benghazi. She did not describe the Turkish official he met as something other than the ambassador, as has been said in the past. She really didn’t like the idea of these talking points written by a committee.

(and here again, the CIA struck out references and tried to blame the FBI. Then CIA Director David Petraeus didn’t have any idea who struck that out. Doesn’t that sound like people trying to cover their tracks?)

Rep Mike Rogers and others made reference to the 4 Tunisians killed on Sept. 13 protecting the U.S. Embassy in Tunisia as something we need to be concerned about.

One of the guests on Face the Nation, I think Sen Feinstein, mentioned there was a talk of consolidating operations, which was rejected on the grounds it was too dangerous (as proof they had an idea how dangerous Benghazi had become)

I thought the argument was that the Ambassador was too well known, and if he stayed at the “annex” (a word never used by the guests today) he would give away its location.

Senator Feinstein either had no clue, or wasn’t saying, whatthe porpose of Ambassador Stevens’s trup to Benghazi was (besides the public meetings) but I’m inclined to think, especially given his meeting with the Turkish official, who it turns out maybe really wasn’t the Ambassador to Libya, it had to do with the smuggling of weapons from eastern Libya mainly to Syria (although they were also going to Hamas)

The U.S. was against giving anything but particularly against missiles that could shoot down a plane, (which wouldn’t have to be a Syrian plane) and Saudi Arabia and Qatar were paying for sending it from the Benghazi area (where Qaddafi had stored a lot of weapons) to northern Syria thrugh Turkey.

The missiles for Hamas were being taken across Egypt and smuggled through tunnels into Gaza.

Cyrenaica (eastern Libya) was a source for Hamas of weapons, but also newly manufactured Iranian weapons delivered to the Sudan – also transported through Egypt and smuggled through Sinai and tunnels into Gaza. Israel bombed one or two shipments later.

Earlier it has been stolen or abandoned cars that had been smuggled from the Benghazi area to Gaza, while the war in Libya was still going on.

SCHIEFFER: Let me shift to the whole situation with that episode that happened back in Benghazi that’s been, kind of, in turmoil. What happened? How was it that an American ambassador and three other Americans died there? Susan Rice, who many think the president was planning to nominate to be secretary of state, was back up on Capitol Hill during the week. Did she help or hurt her case?

GRAHAM: Well, apparently, according to the senators she met, [Q. wasn’t he one of them??] she didn’t do herself much good.

But let’s just say this about Benghazi. It’s just not about Susan Rice. It’s about a system that failed. The military failed. The intelligence community failed, before and during. This is about a system designed to protect us that completely broke down. The consulate should have been closed in the first place. I can’t believe we couldn’t reinforce it in seven hours. And that’s where I’m going to move to next.

But as to Susan Rice, the story she told on your show and others on 16 September, after having looked at the intelligence that was available, does not remotely meet the truth. She said that the security at the consulate was strong, substantial and significant on three different shows. That wasn’t even in the talking points about the level of security. If you look at the evidence available, the footprint in Benghazi was not strong, substantial, or significant. It was weak. They had been begging for months to have more reinforcements or close the place like the British did. I think her story on 16 September was a political story designed to help the president three weeks before the election. [Sic. Maybe he means 3 weeks before the first debate?]

And she should be held accountable for that.

She let you and others know, by the way, this president decimated Al Qaida. And if you looked at the facts around Benghazi, you could not have said in good conscience Al Qaida had been decimated anywhere in the world. And this was not a result of a video. This was a preplanned terrorist attack and they should have known it early on. So her statements on 16 September are a treasure trove of misleading statements that had the effect of helping the president, downplaying a debacle three weeks before the attack (sic).
[This SIC is in the CBS transcript. He said it twice, only this time the three weeks it is more noticeable and is before the attack]

[Then Lindsey Graham mentions his general policy on cofirmations]

The president, if he believes she is the best person in this country — and you have a lot of good people to choose from — to be secretary of state, that she’s most talented, most gifted, the best choice he could make, then he should send her up. I am inclined to support presidential choices. Elections matter. I voted for every Cabinet official, almost all of President Obama’s judges. When he was a senator, he had a different view of how to do this.

But when it comes to Susan Rice, I can tell you, as far as Lindsey Graham’s concerned, I find great fault with what she said on 16 September, and in other areas I find her lacking when it comes to being the best choice for secretary of state. But this is up to the president.

SCHIEFFER: All right, Well, Lindsey Graham I think… I think you laid it out in pretty uncertain terms.

GRAHAM: And can I just add one thing?

SCHIEFFER: Sure. Sure.

GRAHAM: Well — but, OK, the next thing that Lindsey Graham wants to talk about [Who does he think he is? Bob Dole?] is why, for seven hours on September 11th, we could not reinforce the compound. Did the president order the military and others to come to their aid? And if he did, when did he make that order? When was he first notified? We know every detail of the bin Laden raid. We have photos of him commanding the moment. We don’t know anything about what he did on September the 11th when it comes to Benghazi. And if he ordered these people to be helped and the answer was there is nothing we can do, what did he say about it? Was he mad?

We need to get into the details of how they died, and we also need to get into the details of why we left our consulate so open and unsecured when the British left and everybody else left Benghazi but us. This is a story of system failure, and if we don’t get to the bottom of it, we will fail to learn. And if we don’t change our strategy from a foreign policy point of view, Bob, change this light footprint approach to the war on terror, there are going to be more Benghazis.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, thank you very much, Lindsey Graham.

GRAHAM: Thank you.

Obama hiimself left to go to Las Vegas for afundraiser. He says he left behind orders to do whatever it takes to get everybody out safely (at that time they did not know where the ambassador was, just that they were out of touch with him and couldn’t locate him)

There was actually much going back and forth and relying on the Liobyan government.

1. The United States is working with Jordan to arm different rebels than the ones being armed by Qatar and Turkey. So maybe not everybody in the U.S. government is comopletely stupid. Or maybe not? Jordan is after all reported to be shipping arms that are paid for by Saudia Arabia and Qatar. How comew the only guilty parties here are Qatar and Turkey, but not Saudi Arabia. Anyway the report had Jordan the U.S. and certain gulf allies directing aid to a different group of rebels.

2. The United States has now designated one of the Syrian factions as a terrorist group. these are people with the most obvious terrorist connections: to al Qaeda. The US is also moving toward or has already recignized some other group a sthe legitimate government of Syria,

By the way Israel inquired twice of Jordan about destroying some syrian chemical weapons. Jordan said: too soon.

How could that happen?
After the Left’s screaming for 20+ years about how Ronald Reagan armed the Taliban with the weapons used to chase the Soviets out of Afghanistan, you would have thought that Obama & Co. would be Super-Extra-Careful about who they were sending arms to – or not?

Of course there’s the Rwandan genocide in 1994, where she voiced the thought that calling it genocide (and not doing anythingabout it, as Clinton had decided) would hurt the Democrats in the November elections.

And the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, where some requests for security were ignored. (more recently, this has nothing to do with Suaan Rice, security was withdrawn from the embassy in Azerbaijan but put back. A plot was discovered in the meantime)

The genocide quote I had was in an article in the September 2001 Atlantic and made it into the famous book Samantha Power wrote.”A Prroblem from he based on
that article.

There was also a big problem with her diplomacy
in the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea where she
tried to get Eritrea to accept without consulting
it. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is reported
to have been furious. 100,000 people died in that
war. Only three months ago she eulogized then
Ethiopian dictator Meles Zenawi. And the worst
place is the eastern Congo. Maybe 5 million people
died in the war waged by Rwanda and Uganda to topple
the Congolese government after 1998. Susan Rice
denied supporting the intervention (which was
allegedly to prevent a resumption of the genocide)
but human rights groups did not believe the Clinton
Administration.

Toward the end he quotes websites about Benghazi -all of these articles, datelined somewhere other than Benghazi, he notes, talked of a demonstration.

The price we pay for not being where news happens can be reckoned not only in less good journalism, but in less good policy. Because, make no mistake, some portion of the information governments call “intelligence” is nothing more than an attentive reading of the news.

It is ostensibly a scandal that the Obama administration initially described the attack that killed Chris Stevens not as a terrorist plot but as a protest gone bad. How could the “intelligence community” have gotten it so wrong? How could United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice have gotten it so wrong? Well, go back and read the first online reports after the Benghazi attack.

The Wall Street Journal: Stevens was killed “amid angry protests over a film by a U.S. producer that mocks and insults the Prophet Muhammad.”

The Associated Press: “… protesters in Libya burned down the U.S. consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi, killing the U.S. ambassador. …”

The Washington Post: “In both Cairo and Benghazi, protesters said they were demonstrating against a U.S.-released film. …”

CNN: “The Benghazi consulate was one of several American diplomatic missions that faced protests. …”

The Los Angeles Times: “Angry crowds attacked U.S. diplomatic posts in Egypt and Libya … after a video appeared on the Internet. …”

The New York Times: “Protesters angry over an amateurish American-made video denouncing Islam attacked. …”

It is not irrelevant that every one of the online reports I just cited had a dateline somewhere other than Benghazi — Cairo, Washington, New York. In the ensuing news cycles some excellent reporting by journalists on the scene set the record straight: there were no protesters in the street, but the perpetrators of the attack were, by their own account, infuriated into violence by reports of the offensive video. By then it was too late. The story had been hijacked for partisan spin and counterspin. But I strongly suspect that one reason Susan Rice got it wrong at the outset is that most of us in the press weren’t there.

So he thinks that idea came from the press.

I would think the same idea of demonstration about the video in Benghazi was being circuklated in many different ways.

Most ionteresting: Maybe twenty people were involved. And it explicitly says the CIA still holds on to the idea of a spontaneous attack based on the video, althouygh no longer any
a demonstration. It also shows, like I said, that after sept 12th, the claims of a protest got stronger with time.

The first CIA analysis on Benghazi came in the early morning on Sept. 12, as the agency was still working to evacuate the rest of its officers and the remains of the four deceased Americans from Benghazi. Those first reports concluded the attack was intentional and contained a reference to possible involvement by al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb, an affiliate of the international terrorist movement, and Ansar al-Sharia, a local militant group. They said assault didn’t appear to stem from a peaceful protest….

…On Sept. 13, CIA reports began to show that analysts believed a protest had occurred in Benghazi that day, though this was rarely stated directly, officials said. The CIA reports also said “extremists” with ties to al Qaeda took part in the attacks on the consulate and nearby CIA annex…

Like, I said, Sooper Sekrit Intelligence began to come in (more probably than the news reports Bill Keller cites) and the CIA only then began to talk of a demonstration.

….After rounds of bureaucratic exchanges, the CIA officials seeking to remove al Qaeda won the argument, and officials agreed to retain the umbrella term “extremists” but drop the mention of al Qaeda. The term represented a hedge the CIA used because the attack’s links to al Qaeda had yet to be confirmed. This argument was that including the name would have required additional wording to indicate uncertainty about the al Qaeda links—language that could have opened additional avenues for misinterpretation.

The information was derived from what was seen as a “tenuous” source—intercepts of phone calls between suspected militants saying that al Qaeda-linked militants took part in the attack. The evidence was deemed by some of the intelligence officials to be inconclusive.

Eliminating references to al Qaeda also would protect sources, some of the officials argued. With so few suspected al Qaeda-affiliated militants taking part in the attacks, officials were concerned that fingering al Qaeda in official information would tip them off that they were being monitored.

Some officials were also concerned that naming al Qaeda could compromise an inquiry into the attack by the Federal Bureau of Investigation…..

…On Sept. 15, Michael Morell, then CIA deputy director and now acting director, spoke with the CIA station chief in Tripoli, who expressed concern that the agency’s reporting was off the mark. The station chief said there was no protest ongoing at the time of the attack, and he didn’t think the attack was spontaneous. Mr. Morell asked the chief to summarize his views in an email so the analysts at Langley could evaluate his take along with more than a dozen other internal intelligence reports, Mr. Morell later told lawmakers.

Officials placed the talking points that day in a binder that was hand-delivered to Ms. Rice at around 8 p.m. at her home in Washington, where she was making last-minute preparations before making the rounds of the news shows the following morning…..

…One former senior intelligence official who wasn’t involved in the debate said the CIA apparently didn’t review its talking points with an eye toward how they would be cast in statements to the public. In the past, analysts would divide statements into “16-word couplets” to flyspeck how the information would look in a sound bite. The phrase refers to the 16 words President George W. Bush spoke in his 2003 State of the Union address that later gave rise to allegations his White House used false information to justify the Iraq war.

Ms. Rice later told lawmakers that she didn’t freelance and mention al Qaeda by name during her television appearances because doing so would have ventured into information that was still classified, congressional officials say.

The CIA’s Tripoli station chief sent an email Sept. 16 about the issue of protests in Benghazi, but the agency didn’t immediately change its assessment. Some former officials criticized that decision. “Station chiefs are like God,” the former senior intelligence official said.

At the time, analysts at CIA gave greater weight to multiple reports from the scene that pointed to a protest. The Tripoli station chief wasn’t in Benghazi during the attack, Mr. Morell told lawmakers last week….

But I strongly suspect that one reason Susan Rice got it wrong at the outset is that most of us in the press weren’t there.

Is it a requirement that one get a lobotomy to work at the NYT.

The NYT is not a source of intelligence. Well, not a source that the US uses for foreign intel. Their willingness to leak US classified information no matter how much it harms our national security makes them a great intel service for America’s enemies.

But we had CIA operatives and State Dept. personnel their, on site. And they are great sources of intel.

If Rice got it wrong because the NYT didn’t have a foreign correspondent in Benghazi and therefore she couldn’t read it in the Old Red Whore, because that’s where she turns for her intel, then she’s a blithering idiot and adds another layer of disqualifying factors all their own.

Even if Keller is too stupid and too self-important to see it.

But I will grant that in this idiocy is one grain of truth. And it’s a truth about idiocy. The Obama administration probably did think it could get away with that laughably fake cover story because they were reading it in the press.

The CIA and State Department could not rely on live video feeds of the attack or statements from eyewitnesses because nebulous reports from foreign press sources who were not present at the scene were deemed more accurate.

“Like I said, Sooper Sekrit Intelligence began to come in (more probably than the news reports Bill Keller cites) and the CIA only then began to talk of a demonstration.”

234. Comment by Steve57 (1922f2) — 12/5/2012 @ 4:56 pm

Sammy @229,

I’ll give you this, dude.

You’re consistent. You keep falling for it.

That Wall Street Journal article clearly demonstrates that, like I said after this issue came up in the second debate, initially, they had it right – there was no peaceful protest at first in Benghazi – it was just a planned attack, and only later, gradually getting stronger over that week, did they begin to get it wrong, and the error did not originate in the White House .

The White House never would have sent Susan Rice out like that had they believed what she was going to say was false, because they would have known that that could not withstand scrutiny. They had to think it was true.

There are moles in the CIA, and Prince Bandar miscalculated with his disinformation. This disinformation was so politically appealing to the White House that they went public with it, which he never expected. And if this is pursued enough, we will at least get close to discovering the moles.

231. The NYT is not a source of intelligence. Well, not a source that the US uses for foreign intel.

That’s what Bill Keller thinks and that’s his explanation for the talking points inventing a demonstation that didn’t happen.

I agree with you. They must have had their own sources of information, in fact some CIA people earlier leaked an explanation, (the word informants, Libyan press reports and that intercepted conversation with some al Qaeda person in Mali) but the fact that nobody has out said very much about it indicates the sources were and are SOOPER SEKRIT.

The White House did not tell them to come up with this conclusion. It would have been utter folly, and if it was really unsourced, we would have heard leaks. There were sources – mostly Sooper Sekrit ones.

The New York Times and all those other news outlets also got the same disinformation. Then they interviewed people in Benghazi and found out some things weren’t so.

The President and the toplevels of the U.S. Federal government, however, because the first information came from witnesses and people involved, had it close to right at the start, and only when the disinformation proliferated, did they start to get it wrong. This is a key point Romney missed. Some others are missing it too, now.

By the way, connecting this to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is also wrong or misleading. This is a very peripheral and limited conneection.

The connections of Ansar al Sharia go mainly to Egypt. Now there’s no al Qaeda in Egypt. In Egypt you have al Qaeda’s parent group(s) and like you said, they are being hunted – it is not easy to get a table of organization.

“The White House never would have sent Susan Rice out like that had they believed what she was going to say was false, because they would have known that that could not withstand scrutiny.”

Sammy – Not true. This administration’s first move is to lie and then stonewall when it gets caught.

They did it with Fast and Furious, the fudged science to support the drilling moratorium after Deepwater Horizon, the New Black Panther Party prosecution, the Underwear Bomber being a lone wolf terrorist as well as the Times Square Bomber being a lone wolf. Obama’s doing it again now with the fiscal cliff talks saying the math doesn’t work in Boehner’s plan when just last year he himself was promoting a similar plan raising even larger amounts of revenue.

The Obama administration probably did think it could get away with that laughably fake cover story because they were reading it in the press.

It was in the press at the beginning because somebody was out there spreading the story about a demonstration about a video in Benghazi. That somebody was not the Obama Administration.

But while that was in the press at the beginnng, they weren’t reading the same things in the press any more by the end of the week. Bill Keller in his op-ed piece in the New York Times this Monday was only talking about the earliest press reports. But later, and soon, they started to get it right. They first noticed contradictory accounts of the attack.

By the way, this doesn’t get into all the questions of the decisions that were made as this was going on.

By September 15, the press was already correcting it. The CIA, however, had “corrected” things in the wrong direction.

“The White House never would have sent Susan Rice out like that had they believed what she was going to say was false, because they would have known that that could not withstand scrutiny.”

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/5/2012 @ 10:49 pm

Sammy – Not true. This administration’s first move is to lie and then stonewall when it gets caught.

They tell a lot of stupid lies about public issues. But the thing is, they are either not easy to prove false, or not challenged very well.

Nor are lies about issues remembered very well. It is easy to accept them as mistakes. It is faulty reasoning not out and out false fact. They are matters of opinion. I think what we do see more there are statements that imply some things that are just not true. This is all not hard and fast.

They did it with Fast and Furious,

With Fast and Furious they could believe that the lie – the lie that letting guns walk was not a tactic – might work. And it did for a while till more questions got asked and more information became known. It was not obviously a lie that was doomed to explode.

With regard to the question of when Attorney General Holder became aware of it, they were stuck. They knew it wasn’t such a good lie when they said it.

the fudged science to support the drilling moratorium after Deepwater Horizon,

OK. A transparent lie, but one which they might not think was too important, and a technical matter as well.

the New Black Panther Party prosecution,

They were stuck. The big lie there would be that no political considerations went into dropping the prosecutions and that there was some legitimate prosecutorial reason for doing so. Not very believable, but there’s no smoking gun.

the Underwear Bomber being a lone wolf terrorist

They wanted to believe that. And unlike Benghazi, there were no flat assertions of fact that were wrong.

But wait. Did they anyway make the claim he was a lone wolf? He obviously was not. He didn’t build the bomb himself.

I think it’s the major in the army base (Ft. Hood Texas) whom they said was a lone wolf. I don’t know if anybody said it with regard to the underwear bomber. There was a different problem with him. Or two problems.

One about whether he should have been given Miranda warnings as soon as he was. They said the only reason not to do so would be if he had knowledge of other imminent terrorist plots, butd the law is not as limited as they tried to make it out to be.

The second problem was whether people involved in airplane security should have known about him.
What was discovered later was that the U.S. had been warned about him by his father, but because his activities were thought to be in Yemen, he never got put on the (bloated) do not fly list.

as well as the Times Square Bomber being a lone wolf.

Oh, that one, Mayor Bloomberg really said that But that’s something different. That is an opinion which is not really reasonable for a person to have, rather than a lie.

Obama’s doing it again now with the fiscal cliff talks saying the math doesn’t work in Boehner’s plan when just last year he himself was promoting a similar plan raising even larger amounts of revenue.

Sammy – Because he just believes the media will back him up and Americans are stupid. I could easily double the list I provided off the top off my head because the lies are so transparent to anybody paying attention. You should just stop being an apologist for a dishonest administration.

No, he said Boehner’s $800 billion of revenue math did not work, while he proposed to find $1.2 trillion the prior year via the same methodology. Obama himself isn’t proposing to solve the entire deficit reduction (commitment?) reduction with his phantom cuts so your logic is specious to begin with.

” By September 15, the press was already correcting it. The CIA, however, had “corrected” things in the wrong direction.

Comment by SPQR (768505) — 12/5/2012 @ 10:57 pm

You are blaming the CIA? They are denying that they got it wrong and are blaming the DNI.

They tried to blame some other people for the wording of the talking points, but they had to admit it. It wasn’t the DNI, and it wasn’t the FBI (although one reason the CIA people cooked up was an FBI type reason) that changed the wording of the talking points to take out all references to terrorism and al Qaeda.

The CIA now is still, still, still – pay attention because you can miss this thing – claiming they were not wrong about this being inspired by what happened in Cairo (and therefore not preplanned) and that what motivated the attackers was the video.

They are saying the only mistake they made was about there being a demonstration before the attack, and that that is a relatively small matter. That’s what they were saying more than a month ago. (that this is a small error)

Here is what it says about their correction in the December 4, 2012 Wall Street Journal article:

Also on Sept. 20, based on fresh information, the CIA changed its assessment to conclude that a protest hadn’t directly preceded the attack

I put that word “directly” in italics, because it seems to me it means, that at least at that time, the CIA was still saying there was a protest about the video in Benghazi, but just that it hadn’t directly preceded the attack.

It further says it took till Sept. 22 for the “new view” to get into the President’s Daily Brief. The Sept 28 statement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, it says, sidestepped the issue.

The demonstration claim was corrected by the State Department on October 11.

Sammy – Because he just believes the media will back him up and Americans are stupid. I could easily double the list I provided off the top off my head because the lies are so transparent to anybody paying attention. You should just stop being an apologist for a dishonest administration.

I’m not apologizing for them. I’m saying the idea that the attack on the people in Benghazi was not pre-planned, and thee was a demonstration against a You Tube video which some extremists took advantage of Benghazi is a different kind of a thing and they only said it because they thought it was true.

Not one person has leaked that anyone in the White House – or anywhere – told the CIA people to say that.

Even now the CIA is not conceding that the idea of the attack happening because Cairo did, or for any other reason than the video, is wrong.

The CIA has tried to avoid responsibility for this, or denied they did anything incorrectly or inexpertly any way along the line. They’ve tried to spin everything as the right way to go or their re-evaluation and the time it took as reasonable.

I’m not apologizing for them. I’m saying the idea that the attack on the people in Benghazi was not pre-planned, and thee was a demonstration against a You Tube video which some extremists took advantage of Benghazi is a different kind of a thing and they only said it because they thought it was true.

Sammy, give it up. The lie about the video originated with the administration.

I’m not linking to all the evidence again. There are reams of evidence and I’m sick of going over the same ground because you’d rather not face reality. Keller bleats that Rice got it wrong because there were no foreign correspondents on scene?

There were in Cairo. CNN had been reporting on the “protests” at the US embassy. They interviewed the organizers, including AQ emir al Zawahiri’s brother. And the protests were organized to call for the release of the blind sheik, GITMO detainees, and other US prisoners.

It was only after the administration came up with the video lie, because they had to claim that these protests had nothing to do with the administration and its policies, that CNN decided to stop reporting the truth and instead assist the administration with the cover-up.

CNN Hides Facts: Cairo Riots Not About ‘Offensive’ American Movie, But Freedom of Blind Sheik The Goal

(Whoever writes there gets the conclusion wrong; it wasn’t primarily about making it America’s fault but making it not-about-Obama’s-fault.)

Hard to believe? Then you haven’t been paying attention. CNN has a history of carrying water for governments. Read Eason Jordan’s 2003 NYT piece (of what I’ll leave to your imagination) “The News We Kept To Ourselves.”

If you search on the terms the page briefly comes up, then disappears and the Times says it can’t find it. Liars.

CNN willingly reports government propaganda. They did it for 12 years in Baghdad; they did it again in 2012 in Cairo.

The administration can’t rewrite history. What makes you think you can rewrite history, Sammy?

The lie originated with the administration. Why do you think it took so long for them to respond to those shameful Cairo embassy tweets apologizing for the first amendment?

Here’s a clue. Those tweets were by direction. The embassy speaks for the President. That was the start of the cover-up. Eventually they had to disown them. For the same reason they fabricated the narrative in the first place. Pure politics.

The news agencies had been reporting what they saw until they realized the administration needed them to support the narrative for campaign purposes. Then they reported the lie instead.

That’s the timeline. It’s a matter of record. Deal with it.

Or keep imagining soooper sekrit intel. The same way the administration is fabricating it. As I and other observers have been saying from the start there was never any “fog of war.” It was the Obama campaignistration fog machine operating at full blast. They’re still operating it.

“The CIA now is still, still, still – pay attention because you can miss this thing – claiming they were not wrong about this being inspired by what happened in Cairo (and therefore not preplanned) and that what motivated the attackers was the video.”

Sammy – Pay attention now Sammy, because you can miss this, who in the CIA is still saying this and who are they saying it to? Please provide links.

Bill Keller, former editor of the New York Times in an Op-ed piece in the Monday, December 3, 2012 New York Times:

But I strongly suspect that one reason Susan Rice got it wrong at the outset is that most of us in the press weren’t there.

Comment by Steve57 (1922f2) — 12/5/2012 @ 4:52 pm

Is it a requirement that one get a lobotomy to work at the NYT?

The NYT is not a source of intelligence. Well, not a source that the US uses for foreign intel.

It is too similar to what the New York Times (and other outlets) reported right at the beginning, to be coincidence.

They all said the attack in Benghazi was connected to a protest about a film that mocked Mohammed, or something close to that. (The NYT actually did not say film)

Now I think the whole thing is a little bit special pleading about the value of foreign corespondents, but yes, He suspects the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and CNN are used by the CIA as a source intelligence. Call it cheating if you want, but he thinks so. And there’s the famous statement by President Kennedy aboutthe Bay of Pigs that he should have paid more attention to the New York Times than the CIA (something like that)

Now I think it is indeed too similar to be a coincidence, but the connection s not so simple. All these newspapers, and the CIA, were targets of the same disinformation. Indeed there must have been some common source – these newspapers all got the same wrong story, but probably not because they just copied from each other. The big source I think was that Libyan deputy interior minister who had his name transliterated into the Latin alphabet 4 different ways, Wanis al-Sharef. He told CBS News that as soon as news of the video came out everybody should have been evacuated. The day before he told Agence France Presse that everybody was safe.

I suspect that the United States government was in contact with him ll through the seven hours o more the events took, and with false promises and lies, he prevented any form of effective American response – anything at all except a panicky evacuation designed to try to make sure nobody would ever come back and that the American government would not find out just where and when and how the Ambassador to Libya had been killed.

Sammy, I’ve detected rather foolish liberal biases in the back of your mind. Don’t listen to them. And remember most of all: Those left-leaning emotions do not necessarily make you a nicer, more humane, more decent, more generous human being. They certainly don’t make you or anyone else a more honest person.

It is too similar to what the New York Times (and other outlets) reported right at the beginning, to be coincidence.

They all said the attack in Benghazi was connected to a protest about a film that mocked Mohammed, or something close to that. (The NYT actually did not say film)

Yeah. It’s a mystery how the news can coordinate the reportage so thoroughly.

Almost like they’re working together as well as with the administration. Like they have, oh I dunno, some sort of e-mail distribution list so they can all get the talking points. Some sort of “journolist,” if you will.

The fact that most of the media are of the left, have emotional ties to Obama, are comfortable with the ethos of “blame America first” (eg, a mean, unkind, racist, sexist, homophobic video produced in the West, and posted to Youtube, hurt the feelings of sad, suffering, noble people in the Middle East), is merely coincidental.

BTW, in reality, most of the MSM are NOT full of liberal biases because….they’re owned by big corporations!!!

Now I think the whole thing is a little bit special pleading about the value of foreign corespondents, but yes, He suspects the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and CNN are used by the CIA as a source intelligence. Call it cheating if you want, but he thinks so.

I’m sure he does. That’s why we in the military used to use them as dupes.

I used to laugh out loud at the news when I was deployed for ONE/OIF. I’m reading the message traffic, and watching and reading what they’re saying. Their analysis was hilarious.

Still, it’s important to know what they are saying. And to let them think they’re right. If you want to protect sources and methods. And keep actual events classified.

The big source I think was that Libyan deputy interior minister who had his name transliterated into the Latin alphabet 4 different ways, Wanis al-Sharef. He told CBS News that as soon as news of the video came out everybody should have been evacuated. The day before he told Agence France Presse that everybody was safe.

He’s the same joker who also tried to shift blame from the Islamists to die-hards from the old Qaddafi regime.

He’s also trying to shift blame from himself. He wasn’t just the deputy interior minister. He was deputy interior minister for the eastern region of Libya. As in where Benghazi is located.

He was on Al Jazeera the next day saying (in addition to the above) that it’s the fault of the US State Dept. for not beefing up security after the assault on the consulate the previous June.

But of course, that’s not true. The host nation provides security for diplomatic missions. Here’s a clue. The militias that have a quasi-official status and are authorized to provide security for facilities like the US consulate belong to the Supreme Security Committee. The Supreme Security Committee is under what Ministry, do you imagine?

Oh, and those repeated requests for more security that Amb. Stevens complained to State were repeatedly ignored; what regional deputy minister do you think they would have gone through?

Oh by they way; Wanis al-Sharif was fired from his post as Deputy Interior Minister for the eastern region of Libya by the end of September as part of a general purge of incompetent or unreliable types.

Who do you think he was working for? Or, more importantly, who do you think the CIA thinks he was working for? Really working for, as opposed to the Libyan government.

…WaPo‘s liberal blogger Ezra Klein is once again blurring the lines between being a journalist and trying to sway politics. In what appears to be at a minimum a breach of journalism ethics, Klein spoke to a group of Senate Democratic Chiefs of Staff last Friday about the Supercommittee, just days before the Committee announced its failing. “It was kind of weird,” said a longtime Senate Democratic aide, explaining that while people “enjoyed it” and gave it “positive reviews” this sort of thing is far from typical.

A longtime Washington editor who deals with Capitol Hill regularly also said this is not the norm: “”I have never heard of a reporter briefing staffers. It’s supposed to be the other way around. This arrangement seems highly unusual.”

Klein’s speech to high-level Democratic aides was in the Capitol, closed door and off the record. It lasted 30 minutes. “I think they thought it was very helpful,” said the aide. “I think it’s unusual. What’s more common is to get someone like Paul Begala or a White House staffer. To get a journalist to talk is a little unusual.”

It wasn’t a briefing, m’kay? That conference call he led in that closed-door off-the-record session in the Capitol building was just a half-hour “free ranging discussion.”

To imagine pure-as-the-driven-snow Ezra Klein, of all people, would coordinate strategy in a secret meeting with the most powerful Democratic staffers on the hill is, well, you called it, daley. Pure crazy talk.

My mistake; I was always under the impression this was a conference call attended by the chiefs of staff. But rereading the articles that broke the story, it looks like Ezra Klein personally went to the hill to brief hold a “free ranging discussion with the assembled chiefs of staff.

Sammy – I’m still waiting for those links you promised about ICE agents suing Obama for being too tough on immigration enforcement. </i

I'll get them too (and the indications the CIA is still sticking to the story about the unplanned assault inspired by the protest in Cairo, something that many people, including Senators like Kelly Ayotte have failed to pick up on.

They only withdrew the part about there being a demonstration, at least right before the attack.

The CIA never claimed that the issue in the demonstration was the video. The video is not in the talking points!

They also acknowledge that they deliberately removed mention of Al Qaeda (but not exactly that they tried to pin the blame for removing it on other agencies) It's the wrong connection to al Qaeda, though)

I knew there was some links I owed you but had forgotten what they about. I mentioned this here somewhere already. The lawsuit was earlier this year.

Sammy – I’m still waiting for those links you promised about ICE agents suing Obama for being too tough on immigration enforcement.

I never said they sued him for being too tough. I said they disobeyed his orders. He only wanted to go after criminals or people who had repeatedly violated immigration law. They wanted all to count equally. They sued him for being too lenient. I was pointing out how much they were resisting his orders.

The CIA never said what the (imaginary) demonstration was about – presumabably they knew that in Egypt it wasn’t about the video.

Later on, people who had taken part in the attack in Benghazi claimed it was because of the video.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/6/2012 @ 11:36 am

Sammy – Review your comments. You keep reintroducing the video as part of what the CIA said. Why are you deliberately confusing the issue?

What I said was (number 261)

252 261.“The CIA now is still, still, still – pay attention because you can miss this thing – claiming they were not wrong about this being inspired by what happened in Cairo (and therefore not preplanned) and that what motivated the attackers was the video.”

They are now talking about the video, or the New York Times is. But back the first week, they didn’t.

It’s just that everybody thinks that if this was inspired by what happened in Cairo, the video must have been the issue.

I think what I am confusing is what the CIA said on Sept 15 and what I think they are saying now.

They said “spontaneous” and Cairo in September, but they never said the video.

They never gave any cause for the demonstration.

I think that was no accident.

But everybody reads “video” or “Mohammed film” into the talking points.

“Right now, there isn’t any intelligence that the attackers preplanned their assault days or weeks in advance,” said the intelligence official. “The bulk of available information supports the early assessment that the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.”

Nothing about a video in that quote.

But the writer of that article thinks the video is in the talking points somehow.

Ms. Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, has said that the judgments she offered on the five talk shows on Sept. 16 came from talking points prepared by the C.I.A., which reckoned that the attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans had resulted from a spontaneous mob that was angry about an anti-Islamic video that had set off protests elsewhere. That assessment, described to Ms. Rice in briefings the day before her television appearances, was based on intercepted communications, informants’ tips and Libyan press reports, officials said.

They just make up new “stuff” as they go along since they’ve told so many lies they can’t keep them straight.
This is one of those times that an Independent Prosecutor could come in handy.
If you’re going to tell tall tales, there should be some cost involved, and those DC lawyers don’t come cheap.

Oh by they way; Wanis al-Sharif was fired from his post as Deputy Interior Minister for the eastern region of Libya by the end of September as part of a general purge of incompetent or unreliable types.

Who do you think he was working for?

I’m not sure. Quite possibly, whoever was behind the Moslem Brotherhood and the attack. Now saudi Arabia funsd the Moslem Brotherhood. The video maker claimed “Jews” had paid for his movie – that points to Saudi Arabia.

Or, more importantly, who do you think the CIA thinks he was working for? Really working for, as opposed to the Libyan government.

Good question. I would expect the CIA probably have a position on that, except maybe that he was just incompetent, which is unlikely to be true.

askeptic @285, they have to make new stuff up as they go along. The inherent hazard of falsifying history as it’s unfolding is you don’t yet know what you’re going to lie about.

Naturally it’s going to take multiple drafts to accommodate what can’t be denied before you get a somewhat coherent cover-up.

Which is what’s amazing to me. We can see the lie evolving, know it’s a lie, yet they keep lying and blaming it on a nonexistent fog of war.

This Keller idiot at the NYT tries his hand at assisting with the cover-up, blaming the lack of MFM foreign correspondents for Rice “getting it wrong.” I guess picking up on Panetta’s lead that we just didn’t have enough real-time intel to send in forces. Because Keller either is idiot enough to believe that foreign correspondents could have given Rice ground truth, or his NYT readership is idiot enough to believe that.

This is why we laughed at reporters; they don’t know what they’re looking at even if they’re there looking at it, and they don’t know enough to know they don’t know what it is they’re seeing.

On the other hand we know that not only were there eye-witnesses but CIA operatives and ex-SPECWAR contractors on site. Men trained in strategic reconnaissance. To gather exactly the kind of intel you need to put bombs on target or to insert troops (the SPECWAR types wouldn’t even have considered going into that situation any kind of assault but a link-up considering men like Woods and Doherty were actually on top of the objective providing intel).

Or exactly the kind of intel to un**** Rices story.

The only conclusion, pace Sammy, is that the administration didn’t want to un**** Rice’s story.

They’re the ones who ****ed it up exactly the way they wanted it.

And Sammy keeps trying to decipher the smoke pouring out of the fog machine; charming.

It’s actually not that complicated; it’s pretty simple. Those of us who got it right the first day got it right. None of the disinformation since has stood up to scrutiny.

This was not HIS lie, or his aides. The idea that there was ademonstration in Benghazi about the video was a lie by the perpetrators.

They got it from the Cairo embassy tweets. The ones in conformity with the WH spin that the protests in Cairo had nothing to do with Obama or his policies. Because that could not be permitted to be thought in the last few months before an election.

Obama has already taken ownership of this. During the debate he claimed to find the idea he didn’t do all he could “offensive.” His ambassadors, he said, speak for me.

Back during the Rodney King Riots (or, Rebellion as per Ms.Waters),
someone (I don’t know what side they were on) had a bright idea.
One of the local TV vans pulled up, and started to set up for a “stand up”.
When the Info-Babe took her spot in the floodlight, a “sniper” let loose with some rifle fire impacting the van.
Said “babe” dove into the van immediately and she and her crew vamoosed unhurt.
She quit the next day, and never again appeared IIRC on L.A. TV again, with the possible exception of a studio interview as the interviewee.

Additionally, the administration, mainly through White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a former CIA analyst, has played down or ignored the Islamist nature of jihadist terrorism, Feith said.

“That has had a really harmful strategic effect throughout the administration,” he said, “because there is an Islamist extremist problem in the world.”

“The terror problem is a subset of the Islamist extremism problem and you can’t deal with either if you’re not clear on the nature of the challenge,” Feith said.

The Obama administration “instinctively” looks for American actions—not those of the attackers—that they can blame for attacks that U.S. enemies take against the United States, he said.

“That is the frame of mind that leads you to say ‘What did we do to provoke them?’ And that is exactly what they [the administration] did.”

The U.S. Embassy in Cairo published an online statement Sept. 11 as crowds stormed the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, most of them seeking freedom for the imprisoned Egyptian terrorist Omar Abdel Rahman.

The statement said: “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

The statement was later removed but was referring to an online video critical of Islam.

The narrative that an anti-Muslim video sparked the Cairo demonstrations and ultimately the Benghazi terror attack would remain the administration’s story for several weeks.

The video narrative was the administration’s lie. The salafists, and the MFM, just picked it up and ran with it.

The politically correct demands imposed on intelligence analysts throughout government also factored into the mishandling of the Benghazi talking points.

DeGraffenreid said multiple government intelligence analysts have told him that analysts in several agencies are prohibited from mentioning Islam in relation to jihadism. Similar constraints are imposed on issues related to both China and Russia in an effort to avoid critical analysis of those states.

“And this is enforced,” he said, adding that analysts who stray from the politically correct guidelines are punished.

…Another problem, deGraffenreid said, is the current intelligence officials who waged covert political campaigns against the George W. Bush administration.

Additionally, government national security bureaucracies have become politicized for internal reasons. For example, the FBI is politicized in seeking to “protect the Bureau” from any criticism.

…A current U.S. intelligence official who is critical of CIA and other agencies regarding Benghazi said the mishandling of the affair is based on political and not security concerns.

The official disputed the CIA’s claim of why it cut out the al Qaeda reference. “Saying it was generic al Qaeda or jihadists is not so specific that it compromises the investigation or intelligence sources and methods,” the official said. “The Libyan president immediately confirmed that much.” Using the term “extremists” instead was politicized as when the administration called the Fort Hood terrorist attack by Army Maj. Nidal Hasan “workplace violence” instead of terrorism, the official said.

Removing references to al Qaeda over concerns about an ongoing investigation is disingenuous, the official said.

…“The evidence points to their efforts not being in the interests of democratic Americans but instead being in the interest of al Qaeda and jihadists, on behalf of an American president who has proven to be overly sympathetic and helpful to jihadists, here in the United States and abroad.”

The above points are all part of a greater whole. I have no doubt about the knee-jerk anti-American pro-third world pro-jihadi instincts of this administration. And of the intel officials they employ. I’ve worked with those guys. I’m still taking showers to get the filth off.

But the over-riding issue are the policies based upon those knee-jerk anti-American pro-third world pro-jihadi instincts. Obama has poured gasoline all over North Africa and the ME. He has done so because that’s who he has always been. He has brought the freshman dorm attitudes shaped by bull sessions in which he by his own admission sought out the Marxist professors and third world revolutionaries, reinforced by the faculty lounge an dinners at former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi, to the WH. And he won’t tolerate any POV that conflicts with his own. Hence the rigid PC. Naturally Clapper and the other tapeworms living in the bowels of the DC bureaucracy are only too happy to go along.

The overriding concern with this administration, just as it is at FBI, is to shield the organization from any criticism for its actions. This is why Carney immediately announced that no matter what, the administration is not at fault. It is never at fault. Because of course it is at fault. But the truth can’t get out.

Naturally the false narrative intended to shield the administration from blame is an anti-American “blame America first” lie. What else do these people know? It’s like Hamas (and I’m not picking the example by accident) who’s to blame for the weather. Of course it’s the Joooos.

And if anyone is mislead by the false trails and smokescreen laid down by the CIA, keep in mind that these are the same people who waged war against Bush. They’re using the same methods now, but they’re not waging war to undermine Bush but prop up Obama.

But, again, the meat of the nut is that Obama is married to his fantasy vision of foreign policy. Libya was his showpiece. He could lead from behind. He doesn’t need to rely on the military (hence no military response). A navy the size of the Belgian coast guard, an air force the size of Ecuador’s, and ground forces the size of the Costa Rican police reserve will suit him just fine. Perhaps with the Hong Kong SWAT team thrown in as his Special Forces (no slam on Hong Kong SWAT, they’re really good). Then with the awesome power of his awesome mind, his compelling personal narrative, and unconventional looks he can exercise “smart diplomacy” and topple whole dictatorships. No boots on the ground needed, you cold-war throwbacks!

Or halt Iranian nuclear programs.

Of course, we’ve seen that this naive manchild has just kicked the table over and armed jihadis from Mali to Syria. And we’re all going to pay the price for his idiocy.

But he’s convinced he’s right. He knows deep down that the jihadis may be right to hate us unwashed redneck knuckle-draggers, but not him. They can’t hate him. So he’ll double down on stupid abroad, just as he’s doing at home.

And the inevitable cover-ups to shield him from blame for his inevitable blunders will always be anti-American “blame America first” lies. Because just like the economy he can’t fix the reputation of this country that we neanderthals ****ed up amongst the righteously indignant yet at heart peaceful third-worlders.

The video narrative was the administration’s lie. The salafists, and the MFM, just picked it up and ran with it.

For that to be true, or entirely true, the tweets done by the person at the Cairo embassy would have had to be aimed at an audience other than the purported one. I thjink they were probably seriously worried about being attacked and seriously trying to forestall it.

Now it could be some informants told them (falsely) a mob was going to assemble angry at the video. But it didnt really start from the Cairo embassy.

The whole problem in figuring this thing out is I don’t really know what were the events of earlier that day September 11th.

I’m quite sure there’s spin (and comfortable thinking) going on from John Brennan, but that’s not the same thing as inventing the video as cause, and the unplanned nature of Benghazi attack. That was not invented in Washington, D.C.

@steve57Seve57. I found some interesting things in that article (but remember this is mostly not knowledge, it’s opinion , albeit informed opinion, which is always very good to listen to. It’s also being pushed in a certain way by the writer:

Anyway:

However, Kenneth E. deGraffenreid, a former White House and Pentagon intelligence official

I guess I’ll have to look up what administration, since he’s not tellng me.

Apparently we don’t know, but he was an intelligence officer in the Navy and worked for the Chief of Naval Operations. He was on the minority staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, apparently during the 1970s, and wrote something about Soviet intelligence activities directed at U.S. arms control monitoring capabilities and then was on the transition team at the Central Intelligence Agency and helped draft then administration’s program for intelligence reform and then he was a Senior Director of Intelligence Programs at the National Security Council from 1981-1987 ad for a whhile was Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In the George W. Bush Administration he was the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Support in the Department of Defense From 2001-2004 and then till 2005, a National Counterintelligence Executive.

So, Reagan and Bush II (first term)

He said

the talking points on Benghazi are a symptom of a larger politicization within the intelligence community.

“It is part of a very, very bad trend of the broader politicization of the bureaucracy,” deGraffenreid said. “American intelligence is hopelessly compromised by their politically correct politicization.” ….

….DeGraffenreid, who has worked with many of the current intelligence officials implicated in the Benghazi scandal, said Clapper, a former Defense Intelligence Agency director, has a long history of being prone to the corrupting influence of so-called intelligence “groupthink” that seeks to tell policymakers what they want to hear rather that providing critical analysis.

“One of the things he has always done is curry favor with the left,” deGraffenreid said of Clapper.

“He’s the kind of guy that I’ve seen in government who on their own comes up with ways to say, ‘I’ll help the administration.’” ….

….Another problem, deGraffenreid said, is the current intelligence officials who waged covert political campaigns against the George W. Bush administration.

Now, were they Democrats, or were they moles?

You could also propose ideologues, but I would would think it’s more likely they were wrong on purpose, and if so, more likely doing this to affect policy and not politics, and so therefore moles. Or some kind of self-serving old boys club.

Intelligence is surprising, open source, this is why I harp on the LOC report, on the situation in Benghazi, a month before, the original intelligence
at the time of the attack, pointed to all the players we the US govt had acquiesced, Bel Hadj,
bin Qumu, Azzouz, et al,

But Clapper’s not the villain here, or at least not the mastermind. He probably did not tell the CIA to say certain things.

Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy in the George W. Bush administration, seems to think the way I do: there really was bad intelligence: (not that anybody should have believed it. Not that anybody should have preferred it when they had some very unimpeachable sources – career U.S. government employees- telling them different about some details)

Feith said

the talking points might have been the result of bad intelligence work, as both the White House and intelligence agencies are asserting….there could be merit to the Obama administration’s claims that it was relying on the intelligence it was given when it misspoke about Benghazi being a spontaneous demonstration gone awry and not a terror attack.

However, Feith said there were several larger issues that relate to the politicization of intelligence surrounding the mishandling of the Benghazi attack.

“One is downplaying that it was a preplanned terror attack because they didn’t want to highlight terrorism because they wanted to claim the administration was succeeding against terrorism,” he said.

“The terror problem is a subset of the Islamist extremism problem and you can’t deal with either if you’re not clear on the nature of the challenge,” Feith said.

The Obama administration “instinctively” looks for American actions—not those of the attackers—that they can blame for attacks that U.S. enemies take against the United States, he said.

“That is the frame of mind that leads you to say ‘What did we do to provoke them?’ And that is exactly what they [the administration] did.”

The U.S. Embassy in Cairo published an online statement Sept. 11 as crowds stormed the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, most of them seeking freedom for the imprisoned Egyptian terrorist Omar Abdel Rahman.

The statement said: “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

The statement was later removed but was referring to an online video critical of Islam.

The narrative that an anti-Muslim video sparked the Cairo demonstrations and ultimately the Benghazi terror attack would remain the administration’s story for several weeks.

Finally, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper put out a statement saying the attack was the work of terrorists.

This is a little bit wrong. Even the talking points said extremists = terrorists might have joined in something other people started.

\\The key points in Benghazi is: 1) Nobody else started anything – something the CIA may still not be conceding – they are only conceding no demonstration immediately preceded the attack 2) it was not inspired by he events in Cairo, (also I think not being conceded) but, if related, both must have been planned together – and there are very visible signs of connections to Egypt and proto-al Qaeda organizations and 3) planned well in advance – just from a logistical standpoint and 4) if they knew about the video, they must have themselves been part of the publicity campaign for the video. Probably commissioned the video, too.

There was somebody else whose name began with an A who went from Egypt to set up the whole thing.

Now the Obama Adminsitration (or civil servants) are recognizing that the arm they agreed Qatar should send to Libya went to terrorists groups – they think those probably were not the same arms used in an attack on the consultant

The mayhem here that killed four United States diplomatic personnel, including the ambassador, was actually two attacks — the first one spontaneous and the second highly organized and possibly aided by anti-American infiltrators of Libya’s young government, a top Libyan security official said Thursday.

The account by the official, Wanis el-Sharif, given to a few reporters here, was the most detailed yet….

… The deaths occurred amid a wave of anti-American protests convulsing the Middle East, inspired by an inflammatory anti-Islamic video, “The Innocence of Muslims,” that has spread on the Internet in recent days since it was publicized in Egypt. Protests expanded on Thursday to at least a half-dozen other countries, including Iran.

Theer were demonstration later in many countries that were ostensibly about the video, or so people were told.

Mr. Sharif, a deputy interior minister, said Mr. Stevens and a second American diplomat, Sean Smith, were killed in the initial attack, which began as a disorganized but angry demonstration by civilians and militants outside the American Consulate on Tuesday, the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The protest escalated into an assault by as many as 200 people, some armed with grenades, who set the building on fire.

Here we have the “spontaneous demonstration” that morphed into an armed assault. They get the disionformation from a Libyan official on Sept 13 in Libya.

The second wave, Mr. Sharif said, was hours later, when the consulate staff was being spirited to a safe house a mile away. At that point, a team of Libyan security officials was evacuating them in a convoy guarded by Marines and Libyan security officials who had been flown from Tripoli to retrieve them.

Mr. Sharif said the second attack was a premeditated ambush on the convoy by assailants who were armed with rocket-propelled grenades and apparently knew the route the vehicles were taking.

This isn’t true either. They were still in place AT THE TIME OF THE ATTACK(s) There was an attack on the people traveling from the site of the “consulate” to the annex, but it subsided. Nobody was killed while everybody was leaving for the airport.

Now, the New York Times already had information indicating what what Wanis al-Sharef told them this was wrong:

Parts of Mr. Sharif’s account were not consistent with what other Libyan witnesses have said, and his version has not been corroborated by American officials, who have said it remains unclear how and where Mr. Stevens was killed.

Which means they were not so sure he died because of the fire.

It took the not days, but weeks, for the CIA to catch up with mainstream media in the United States, and I think they probably haven’t completely coirrected their story.

Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

He said Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building – deemed safer – after the initial wave of protests at the consulate compound. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack.

That isn’t how they found out where the Ambassador was. (the Libyans they had hired) And they weren’t all killed in the second building.

From this confusion developed between the building in the first villa that had a firetrap safe room, and the other location a mile or so away.

Libya’s Deputy Interior Minister Wanis al-Sharif says the consulate’s security forces moved Ambassador Christopher Stevens and other personnel to a second, safer building once the attacks began. But, he continues, the security forces told the attackers which building Stevens was hiding in, effectively handing him over.

Some leaders of Jewish organizations have been trying to support Susan Rice – evidentally she talks to them or lets them talk to her and they like it and don’t want to lose the connection to Obama. There was even a letter in the Wall Street Journal Friday!

(they also don’t have much to complain about what she did at the UN – and sometimes she even incorporated an idea or two they gave her into her speeches)

Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia (who died recently and was eulogized by Susan Rice in Addis Abba on September 2, 2012), Isaias Afewerki of Eritrea, Paul Kagame of Rwanda, Yoweri K. Museveni of Uganda, Jerry J. Rawlings of Ghana, and Thabo Mbeki of South Africa.

Only Jerry Rawlings left voluntarily. Mbeki was eased out – he was best known for wrong information about AIDS.

A Report Prepared by the Federal Research Division, Library of Congress under an Interagency Agreement with the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office’s Irregular Warfare Support Program

August 2012
Federal

The article I linked to contains a greater proportion of fact to opinion than you give it credit for.

You know they’re getting ready to invade Mali or help an invasion.

Look at the front page of today’s Wall Street Journal.

Obama is getting very cloise to asking for authorization. It shouldn’t be done thinking those were the people who directed the aattack in Benghazi.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 12/7/2012 @ 10:55 am

It is a fact, not opinion that Obama was much more deeply involved in arming the al-Qaeda linked groups in Libya than they’ve let on. Blaming Qatar or any other tiny gulf state, as the press has tried to do to provide Obama cover, for arming these groups is like blaming the Ryukyu islanders for Pearl Harbor.

Consequently, Obama has also greatly exacerbated the situation in north west Africa, particularly Mali, and Syria and it will not end well.

Having learned nothing from “leading from behind” in Libya that’s once again the plan in Mali. So once again we can predict the results. Obama will go around creating mess after mess in one nation after another with the mess spilling over into ever more neighboring states.

These are the result of his uninformed knee-jerk anti-American pro-third world pro-jihadi impulses ingrained over a lifetime of indoctrination.

But as I said earlier, he’s married to this vision of lunacy he considers “smart” foreign policy. He’s in denial about his incompetence and as I firmly believe about denial there is an element of conscious awareness of the problem. Which is why they puritanically enforce the code of PC in his briefings. Obama is aware there are other ways of looking at the world; hence his desire to be insulated from them.

This is why the first statement out of Carney’s mouth as events unfolded in Cairo and Benghazi was that these events had nothing to do with the Obama administration or it’s policies. Obama and everyone else in the administration knows perfectly well that it does, but they also have the ability to convince themselves otherwise. Over time they really do come to believe their own lies, even with the knowledge that the cover story was fabricated by them they can still come to believe it.

This spring, she was among a handful of employees given the agency’s Distinguished Intelligence Medal, its highest honor except for those recognizing people who have come under direct fire. But when dozens of others were given lesser awards, the female officer lashed out.

“She hit ‘reply all’ ” to an e-mail announcement of the awards, a second former CIA official said. The thrust of her message, the former official said, was: “You guys tried to obstruct me. You fought me. Only I deserve the award.”

Over the past year, she was denied a promotion that would have raised her civil service rank from GS-13 to GS-14, bringing an additional $16,000 in annual pay.

Officials said the woman was given a cash bonus for her work on the bin Laden mission and has since moved on to a new counterterrorism assignment. They declined to say why the promotion was blocked.

“Obama’s speech was not as dishonest, although it has many dishonest points.”

Sammy – Referring back to #311, please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my impression that you have defended Susan Rice as an innocent snowflake merely repeating talking points provided to her by the administration on national television. In comment #315 you finally admit she was dishonest.

Why have you wasted everybody’s time with so many inane comments defending her honor?

No, Petraeua wasn’t lucky, of course, Filkins was a clueless beat reporter for the Herald, promoted upwards, a similar strategy worked in Ramadi under Major Mirabile in the early part of the intervention, and McMaster in Tall a Far, Casey was kicked up to Army Chief of Staff, so
Petraeus had to navigate around Mullen, him, and Fallon, the above report does have a remarkable amount of detail, about the entire atmosphere, Stevens would be facing,